get_threat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only nature via 'retrieves' and mentions that the return is markdown-formatted. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose behavior for non-existent IDs or any error handling. The lack of side-effect disclosure is partially mitigated by the non-destructive verb.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is generally concise but has redundant sentences: 'Get details about a specific threat' and 'This tool retrieves details about a specific threat in the threat model' say the same thing. It also includes a 'ctx' argument that is not in the schema, adding unnecessary noise. The structure with Args/Returns is clear, but redundancy and extraneous info reduce efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, the required parameter, and return format. It does not specify error behavior or usage distinctions, but those are less critical for this basic read operation. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to detail return values. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sole parameter 'id' as 'ID of the threat to retrieve', adding meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it also mentions a 'ctx' parameter that is absent from the schema, which could confuse an agent. The overall semantic contribution is strong for the actual parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details about a specific threat' and 'retrieves details about a specific threat in the threat model.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_threats by emphasizing a single threat rather than a list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of situations where list_threats would be more appropriate, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied through the 'get' pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.